Filed: May 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6038 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daren Kareem Gadsden, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6038 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daren Kareem Gadsden, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6038 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daren Kareem Gadsden, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daren Kareem Gadsden appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Gadsden, No. 1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3 (D. Md. Jan. 2, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
